SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Alton C. Hutchinson, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s August 13, 2014 judgment dismissing his complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir. 2001). The complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplica *117 ble to legal conclusions.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,” and pleadings that “are no more than conclusions[ ] are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 678-79,129 S.Ct. 1937.

Upon de novo review of the record and relevant law, we conclude that the District Court correctly ruled that Hutchinson failed to allege facts sufficient to support his retaliation, conspiracy, and equal protection claims. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the District Court’s well-reasoned and thorough August 18, 2014 order.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of the arguments raised by Hutchinson on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the District Court’s August 13, 2014 judgment.